Talk:Mind uploading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] jewelhead stories

This description is a little vague, and there are no descriptions of any of these stories on Wikipedia. For those interested - the two 'jewel-head' stories I am aware of are short stories in a collection called 'Axiomatic'. The stories are titled 'Learning to Be Me' and 'Closer'. Maybe I'll write a piece if I have time. 203.214.98.112 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I agree, the Jewelhead stories should be removed and a similar reference to GUNNM should replace it.
  1. GUNNM serials predate 'Learning to Be Me' (at lease according to Wikipedia)
  2. GUNNM covers the same computer at base of skull, with organic original removed concept in the citizens of Tiphares.

It should also be noted that in GUNNM the Mind uploading is done without consent, and without knowledge to the individual. A common occurrence after discovery of the replacement (or lack of orgainic brain) by an individual is madness. The main story of GUNNM revolves around the excepted practice of Brain transplant in the general population, but the isolated population of Tiphares has Mind Upload procedures instead. Larek (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threat to capitalism

Someone want to explain why capitalism would be threatened by mind transfer? It's mentioned in the ethical section. Also, why does this talk page contain the words "Battlestar Galactica"? It's mentioned at least twice, yet not mentioned at all in the article itself. 69.107.67.224 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged "downloading consciousness"

The orphan article "downloading consciousness" has been moved/merged here, to the pre-existing non-orphan "mind uploading" article which is about the same subject. The two should be edited into a single article. -- Anon.


[edit] Disposal rights

", including the disposal of the old body."

is that a right? :-) it would either be suicide or self-mutilation, depending on which perspective you look at it. isn't suicide technically illegal? - Omegatron 00:59, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
When mind transfer becomes possible, this form of suicide will probably stop being illegal soon. Not to mention that suicide is legal in almost all countries even now. Paranoid 16:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"When" it becomes possible? I think you mean "if" it becomes possible. Also, even if suicide were illegal (which it isn't), how are they going to punish you for it? Death? :p Kakashi-sensei 01:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 :-) It looks like it's been illegal at various points in time. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html - Omegatron 02:04, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
If mind transfer technology is developed perhaps one could punish people for committing suicide, depending on whether copies of that person are legally liable. One could also finally be able to serve out multiple life sentences, and even multiple death sentences. :) Bryan 15:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
If someone committed suicide: a) other copies might follow suit. b) other copies might be innocent by law as not responsible for their copy/original's death. Nihiltres 04:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copying vs. moving

I think the Copying vs. moving section needs to be expanded and/or clarified. Right now it barely mentions, if at all, the implications of required consciousness continuity vs. arbitrary consciousness pattern reproduction (whether a mind needs to move with its hardware or whether one can just copy the hard state to reproduce an original), and could be interpreted as POV by the majority of information that implies that a copied mind is equal to and is the same person as the original. I'd like to see more on the subject, even though all ideas presented are by necessity theoretical. Nihiltres 04:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Brain transplant contradiction

DISPUTED :

"Treat Yourself to a New Body" BrainTrans, Inc. Company Website  : what is this ?

i read (whole-body transplant page) : "No technology currently exists to perform brain transplants."

(head transplant page) : "Since the technology required to reattach a severed spinal cord has not yet been developed, the subject of a head transplant would be a quadriplegic. "

while the "BrainTrans" page says : "But act now, join our waiting list and you will receive 10% discount. Expires 01/01/2001."

isn't this a BIG contradiction ? maybe you should add a WARNING or something ? 30 September 2005

  • I read the whole page and I call bullshit. A photo of a "patient" appears to be a Photoshopped mugshot (!), the images of "sample bodies" look like they came from an art magazine, and the general syntax is on par with one of those Nigerian scam emails. Also, they say that they can't reveal where the bodies come from for "ethical reasons." Recommend removing link. Teflon Don 08:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a list of science fiction plot devices?

"merely duplicating how it responds to specific external stimuli"
I suggest that there be a more clear distinction in the article between
1) what are presented as serious possibilities for how to attempt mind transfer
and
2) the contents of the "Mind transfer in science fiction" section.
Given the complexity of the brain and human behavior, it is a joke to say "merely duplicate" human and brain behavior, as if this is any less difficult than actually examining the details of brain structure. --JWSchmidt 15:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring the article

I've restructured this. It had become rather repetitive, and the structure did not seem entirely logical.

I suggest that consideration be given to creating a separate article called something like "mind transfer in science fiction" and moving the relevant material there. It is kind of dominating the rest of the article and it needs more interal structure (and a stylistic edit). Meanwhile, I have put all this material together and eliminated some repetition. Metamagician3000 04:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

What is this saying?

In the case where it is transferred into an artificial body, to which its consciousness is confined, it would become a robot, albeit one that might claim ordinary human rights, certainly if the consciousness within were feeling (or were doing a good job of simulating) as if it were the donor.

In this case, the mind is the donor, isn't it? What is claiming human rights here? Why the emphasis on "were"? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If I copy a computer program onto a jump drive, then copy it onto your computer, is the program on your computer the same program as is on my computer, or just a copy of that program? Say the programs were my human consciousness. How would it work? Would *I* be on my computer, or your computer? Or on the jump drive? Would I be all three places? How? Would I think of myself as being on all three simultaneously? Would I perceive events from all three simultaneously? I have serious doubts as to whether this process transfers the actual sentient being of a person. Applejuicefool 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{OR}} tag

I added this note to the article. I enjoyed reading the article, but it reads much like an essay (i.e. original research) than a typical Wikipedia article. The "feeling" I get from the article is that it is more like a brainstorming session by the editors than a report on expert opinion. — MSchmahl… 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

None of these methods are original to this article, as all of them has seen significant use in the transhumanist and science fiction communities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.101.58 (talk • contribs)
I agree, I've heard all of these before. But MSchmah is right too so let's do some referencing. I've started off with a few easy ones, will do more over time but feel free to dive in with a few others. Bryan 04:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like the objection is more about Template:unreferenced/Template:not verified and Template:cleanup-tone. Perhaps the tag should be changed accordingly. 131.107.0.73 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the tag to "unreferenced," because it seems like this is more the key issue/problem with the article as it stands now. If others feel that OR is still involved, please feel free to change and discuss. --Xaliqen 00:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind TRansfer

Who is it that thinks? It is you. The mind is just a tool, like arms or legs, heart and muscles. Using the mind is like putting your hand in a glove, where the glove is the mind and you are the hand. The mind is a tool, with which you can experience everything outside of you inside of you. Mind Transfer already occurs, it is called Telepathy. It is our inner connection. What would happen if you could separate the mind from your body? Well, ask my schizophrenic friend, he knows.....The mind is virtual reality, it is of the same fabric as the outer world. It is an illusion, a dream made up of light particles like the pixels of a screen. The outer world is also a Dream, it is just not as swift as your mind. Our collective habit is to entertain the focus that the outer world of matter is somehow more Real than the inner world of Mind. In fact, they are the same, they are both unreal and real. /Minoya

[edit] Change title to mind uploading?

Note: as result of an earlier discussion (shown directly below) the the title was changed from Mind uploading to Mind transfer 12 January 2003. This Section resulted in the title being changed back to Mind uploading on 15 February 2007. I've put the two discussions together to reduce confusion.141.219.42.60 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Uploading vs. downloading
Why is the term 'mind uploading' preferable to 'downloading'? Is this because advocates of the process view the thing transferred TO i.e. the new body or the computer, as superior or greater than the body that they are leaving behind?
the 'upload' versus 'download' terminology in the mixed text is confusing
Perhaps it's because "uploading" is what the existing human brain is doing to the mind, and "downloading" is what the new artificial brain is doing to it, and so when seen from the perspective of the human uploading becomes more prominent. Or perhaps it's just happenstance. The mixed terminology is my fault, I didn't change the text as I merged it all. I'll do that now. Bryan
since the terminology is inherently confusing, and since someone has used the phrase "mind transfer", e.g. in the article on w:Raelism, why not simply use "mind transfer" as the main term, and perhaps also use "brain transfer" as the master term (redirecting both w:whole-body transplant and w:brain transplant since it is also unclear from whose perspective it's transplant and whose perspective its donation). Then the terminology is consistent and there is no question of whether the mind's, or the body's perspective is the one invoked.
I agree, that's much cleaner. If there's no objections, I'll move it and fix all the links and such. Bryan



This article's focus is on serious transhumanist ideas about tranferring human consciousness to a computer, rather than just sci-fi ideas about switching minds...in transhumanist circles I think "mind uploading" is much more commonly used than the more generic "mind transfer". Notice, for example, that if you google the phrase "mind uploading" with the word "transhumanism", you get 9,610 hits, while "mind transfer" and "transhumanism" gives only 1,230, with many of them quoting or linking to this wiki article. Likewise, googling "mind transfer" alone brings up a combination of pages dealing with stuff like "father-son mind-transfer comedies" along with pages referring to the wiki article and a few that independently use "mind transfer" in the transhumanist sense but also note that it is often called "mind uploading", whereas googling "mind uploading" gives pretty much exclusively transhumanist pages, including this one from the Foresight Institute which lists a large number of articles on mind uploading by prominent transhumanists.

So, I think it would be better to change the title back to "Mind uploading" rather than "Mind transfer". Would anyone object to this? Hypnosifl 23:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article's resulted from the merging of several articles that used both "uploading" and "downloading", either of which is a valid description of the process depending on point of view. Rather than pick one I think it's preferable to use the current neutral description that covers both cases adequately. For a little old discussion on this topic see #Uploading vs. downloading, above. Bryan Derksen 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I read that discussion, but the participants seemed unaware of the fact that "mind uploading" was pretty much the accepted term in transhumanist writing, not "mind transfer" or "mind downloading" (I agree that if it wasn't for the history, a priori these other terms would make equal sense, but you'll rarely hear a transhumanist using them in place of 'mind uploading'). As I mentioned, googling "mind uploading" along with "transhumanism" gives 9,610 hits, while googling "mind downloading" and "transhumanism" gives only 521. And please look over that link from the Foresight institute I posted, showing numerous uses of the term in transhumanist writings...also, you can find plenty of detailed websites on "mind uploading" by transhumanists, like Anders Sandberg's mind uploading page (see Anders Sandberg) and The Mind Uploading Homepage and minduploading.org, while I don't see any analogous pages using "mind transfer" or "mind downloading". Since the article is primarily about mind uploading in the transhumanist sense, rather than a more general article on "mind transfer" (it doesn't talk about all the fantasy movies where one person's mind is transferred to another body by magical means, for example), shouldn't the title reflect the most common term in transhumanist circles, rather than just the description that seems most logical a priori to wiki editors? Hypnosifl 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to this, I think this would fall under the Wikipedia:No original research policy--since wikipedia isn't mean to be a publisher of original thought, if we have an article about the transhumanist concept of transferring the mind to an artificial substrate, then we should use the most widespread term that transhumanists use for this, not pick our own preferred term. Does anyone disagree? If not, does anyone disagree that "mind uploading" is in fact the most common term for this used by prominent transhumanist writers? If there are no disagreements on either score, I'll go ahead and change the title to "Mind uploading" in about a week or so. Hypnosifl 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's been over a week, so I'll go ahead and change the title now. Hypnosifl 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] one sci fi story not enough

The Egan story should not be considered a method of mind uploading. If is fictious for one and no one has seriously considered it. It belongs in the fiction section.YVNP (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mind uploading in science fiction - Multiplicity?

Should we add the movie "Multiplicity" to this section? http://imdb.com/title/tt0117108/ Tommy (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mind uploading in science fiction - The Matrix?

Should we add the movie "The Matrix" to this section? http://imdb.com/title/tt0133093/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.186.132 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A 'The Matrix' entry was added to the Science fiction section on 01:53, 2 January 2008
  • The next day (Mange01 Added corrective content with the comment ("The Matrix" is not mind uploading, but virtual reality.)
  • I agree with Mange01 that the 'The Matrix' doesn't apply to Mind uploading, But I think it needs to be removed rather than stipulate that it doesn't apply.Larek (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The confusion around The Matrix should somehow be mentioned in the article, since it is a quite common misunderstanding the this movie is about Mind uploading. Mange01 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Misunderstanding may apply to more than a single movie 'The Matrix'. The misunderstanding AIS is really between VR and Mind uploading. As 'The Matrix' is a very well know example of VR the misunderstanding is thus applied to it, but the root cause of the misunderstanding. Would not a section describing the differences and common misconceptions between VR and Mind uploading be a better presentation. Then 'the Matrix' could mentioned as an example VR at the end.141.219.42.60 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also put off by how much 'The Matrix' section is Neo centered. Neo is not unique in the story as_so_far in the topics covered, and that all of the non-"natural" humans from the film, follow those same story elements.141.219.42.60 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mind uploading in science fiction - Ghost in the Shell?

I think this should be here... 83.6.94.177 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It should remain in a seperate article imo AP Shinobi (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree that it should be included, as it covers a topic not currently covered here and that I don't believe is covered currently on a different page.
In the TV version most of the population uses "Cyborging" process, which is covered. However the Tachikomas (Specifically from Season 1 of The TV Version) go through two Mind uploading/downloading processes nightly. Each Tachikoma starts the day as an exact consciousness copy of of the rest, and as described in the Copying vs. moving section their experiences begin to diverge as the day progresses. To counter this diverging, at the end of the day, each partial distinct consciousness is uploaded to a central location and merged back into a single consciousness for download the next day.
This a solution to "The problem" in the Copying vs. moving section that is not currently listed.Larek (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Accepting physicalism for a moment, the mind is not just a set of particles with positions x,y, and z, but a set of particles with position and momentum in a particular direction. Since it is impossible to simultaneously record the exact position and momentum of a particle (heisenburg principle [and common sense to me]) I think it must be impossible to record the exact state of someone's mind. TimL (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Most physical phenomenons that we meet in our daily lives do not require quantum physics to be explained. The probability is very high that classical physics can give a sufficiently accurate explanation to them. Measuring parameters that are affected by the state of a large amount of particles do typically not require the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Do we know that the mind really require quantum physics? The neural paths, the hormones and the electrical impulses between the neurons do probably not - they are rather slow processes, not only involving single particles. What about the "weights" of each input of the individual neurons? And are there any other information about the "internal state" of the individual neurons that must to be measured in the brain scanning process that we can expect to involve single particles? Mange01 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)